Seeing as my opponent is an anarchist and I am a minarchist, this should be a debate of the ages.

"Government" is here defined as a collective compulsory authority limited to protecting freedoms through a collective defense and court system.

VALUE: Individual liberty: The freedoms to govern one's life and property to the extent that other people's life and property are not threatened.
CRITERION: Individual liberty will be protected by establishing a government limited to an enforced court system and a collective defense.

CONTENTIONS AGAINST ANARCHY:
1. Under anarchy, a domestic group could unite and force an oppressive government onto a population.
2. Under anarchy, vigilante justice and a private alternative are the only systems that protect individual freedoms.
3. Under anarchy, foreign nations can easily conquer and then establish an oppressive government.

CONTENTIONS FOR MINARCHY:
1. National defense is best achieved through a collective effort, as without an official military, a people can only REACT to an invading force.
2. Individual rights can be protected through a court system and with a system of law enforcement. With government, individual rights simply can be effectively protected.
3. Not infringing on another's liberty should be compulsory.

I will stop here. My contentions are basic and self-explanatory. I will now let my opponent present a case.

I negate, that "Government is a necessary evil to protect the freedoms of human individuals".

Statistically, people will place a rather heavy burden of proof on me as I am arguing against the status quo, so I'd like to ask the voter to base the winning condition on whether or not I am able to sufficiently address each of PRO's concerns. To argue for anarchy completely requires an overhaul of many ideas and beliefs; something that cannot possibly be done in a single debate here on DDO - putting me to that standard would not be reasonable.

V: Individual Liberty - PRO's definition will be fine.

According to former professor of constitutional law and current president of the United States, Barack Obama, the only attribute that makes a government what it is, is "the monopoly on violence". Companies can own land and churches have the ability to gather fees from their constituents, but only a government can legally initiate the use of force. This is part of PRO's definition - a "compulsory" authority.

No government can carry out its duty without money, and as they are a collective authority, they would, naturally, get their funding from every member of the population. If an organization collects only from a few and protected everyone, then it'd be called a charity. If an organization collects only from a few and protected a few, then it'd be called an insurance company. Only when an organization collects from everyone is it called a government. This is a necessary outcome of PRO's definition.

A government is a compulsory authority that collects from everyone to run its operations.
In other words, a government is going to have your money, and will take it by force if you do not give it.

This directly infringes on individual liberty.
No government can ever achieve individual liberty, as it is based on attacking individual liberty.

VC: Anarchy - The absence of government, limited or not.

__________________

Contentions Against Anarchy

"1. Under anarchy, a domestic group could unite and force an oppressive government onto a population."
>The definition of anarchy is not "without organization", but "without government" - or in other words, an anarchist society (anarchy) would be one without an entity that has the monopoly on violence. In an anarchy, the economic system would be a free market - there is no government to make it a socialist or mercantile system. As we all know very well, the law of the free market is that if there is a desire for something, then a solution will be produced. This is why a domestic group cannot force an oppressive government onto the population.

Are you afraid certain large corporations will become governments? Certainly in an anarchy, every citizen (for lack of a better word) would be as fearful of an oppressive government as we are of terrorists today. Well then, those corporations will have to answer to your needs - they will have to prove to you one way or another that they will not do such a thing. A company that does not answer to its customer's needs cannot survive. Every company would have to do something like post every one of its monetary transactions online - SOME action to clarify that they are being trustworthy. Such transparency then would make it impossible for any company to secretly gather an army to force a government onto the population.

A company is really the only way any domestic group could gain enough power to force an oppressive government onto the population. Timmy's neighborhood gang cannot get enough funds from their combined allowances to buy themselves even a single Stinger missile.

"2. Under anarchy, vigilante justice and a private alternative are the only systems that protect individual freedoms."
>I'm not sure why private alternatives are an argument against anarchy? Also, vigilante justice is a non-unique argument.

"3. Under anarchy, foreign nations can easily conquer and then establish an oppressive government."
>There's quite a few steps before an invasion could start and in those steps are the reasons why a government would not want to attack an anarchy, but for now, let's assume that the attacking country is already on our hypothetical anarchy's doorstep. The security companies of the anarchy will be the ones with the most vested interest in this situation, as they will be the first to go if the invasion is successful. They would more than likely arm the populace at the border with whatever weapons that they pleased, as this creates a significant fog of war problem for the invaders. If we look at Iraq, which has been more or less an anarchy with an armed populace fighting against a foreign country's invading force, it has been a complete fiscal disaster for the US. In recent history's examples of Iraq and Vietnam, it is clear that even the world's greatest military superpower cannot successfully take over an armed populace.

Contentions For Minarchy

"1. National defense is best achieved through a collective effort, as without an official military, a people can only REACT to an invading force."
>As stated earlier, anarchy does not mean without organization. In a free market, there is definitely going to be corporations - although nothing like the ones we know today. Citizens of an anarchy are going to have a desire for security (we know this because we also have this desire), so the free market will provide security insurance companies. This is more or less a type of collective effort, so whatever benefits PRO is arguing that an official military has, an anarchist security company would have as well - though to be sure, I'm not sure what he means by an anarchy can only react to an invading force. React as opposed to what?

"2. Individual rights can be protected through a court system and with a system of law enforcement. With government, individual rights simply can be effectively protected."
>You desire a dispute resolution system and a peace insurance organization? So does everyone else! Therefore, the free market will definitely provide it to you.

"3. Not infringing on another's liberty should be compulsory."
>Though I agree that it should be compulsory in the sense that it should never happen, forcing it to happen simply doesn't work. "Not infringing on another's liberty should be compulsory" is the same thing as saying "It should be compulsory to not infringe on another's liberty", which then is synonymous with "Force should be used to prevent the infringement of liberty", which is a completely contradictory statement. Force is the infringement of liberty, and to say that the infringement of liberty is justified to prevent the infringement of liberty does not fly under any logical system.

_________

That'll be it for openers.
I await a rebuttal from the minarchist position.

I would like to thank Rezzealaux for his response. This is one of my first debates in a long time that I am arguing for the government side, which is why I believe I shall enjoy it.

Because both debaters value individual liberty but have different proposals on protecting it, all that need be debated is the system. The resolution contains the words "necessary evil" not without reason: individual liberty is harmed under anarchy and government. However, I will show that there is greater liberty with government than without.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Arguments against anarchy:
1. Potential domestic establishment of tyranny
I would like for my opponent to describe a private company that would prevent the establishment of tyranny without infringing on individual liberty.

Such a company would likely become a monopoly because of the economics of scale. According to economist Milton Friedman, "Monopoly arises to some extent because technical considerations make it more efficient or economical to have a single enterprise rather than many" [1]. Should defense against the establishment of tyranny be monopolized privately, it is more susceptable to corruption than collective democratic ownership.

Because free riders would most certainly exist from such a private company (because they can reap the benefits of the company's services without paying), such a company would not have very much power. As a result, the funding for defense against the domestic establishment of tyranny would be significantly less if privatized. Because of the free rider system, anarchist systems such as 1936 Spain were ended. There was no company to prevent this perhaps because of the free rider problem.

2. Private Justice and Vigilantism
Private vigilante justice systems such as the Mafia have a history of corruption. They still exist in the free market because there is demand for their services, which are more economically efficient than alternatives. Vigilantism deprives its victims of liberty without due process, so innocents are more likely to be oppressed under anarchy than otherwise.

A private court system would have compulsory authority in order to function and, again, collective democracy in funcions with compulsory authority is necessary to limit corruption.

3. Conquest
My opponent's proposed national defense system has several flaws:
-The free rider problem: the individuals in a community would not invest their personal incomes in a security company if they could get the same benefits without doing so. As a result, people would likely not invest in "defense insurance" because the community recieves the benefits of the insurance without having to pay for it.
-His Vietnam and Iraq examples are not profit-driven companies, but power-driven and religiously motivated insurgencies. The Viet Cong were supported by foreign governments, and the Iraqi Insurgency was funded by global terrorist organizations.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Minarchy:
1. National Defense
I have already addressed the weaknesses of security companies (technical monopoly, free rider problem). These weaknesses are significant enough to prefer a collectively funded military.

3. The Justification of Compulsory Authority to Protect Liberty
Slavery of human beings would occur under an anarchist system. Slavery obviously is an infringement of one's ability to govern their own lives and property.
Simply put, in the absence of a system to protect people from coercion, coercion occurs. Coercion not to coerce can be considered a lesser evil than individual coercion left alone. So, a certain level of government is necessary to protect individuals from coercion.

My opponent has proposed private courts to protect people from coercion; however, in order to prevent coercion, such courts would have to have coercive power. A collectively controlled coercive entity is also ethically preferable, because the power to coerce should be derived from the people. In the words of Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" [2].

Profit-driven coercion can be considered a greater evil than collectively controlled coercion.

CONLCUSION:
The coercive powers necessary to protect liberty in society must be placed in the hands of a government controlled by the people. A government is also necessary to defend from threats to liberty, both foreign and domestic.

1>>>
There are three separate issues: 1) preventing tyranny without infringing on liberty, 2) monopoly, and 3) free riders for what I will call "watchdog companies".

1) This was answered in R1; the transparency of transactions would make it impossible for any company to pose a tyranny.

2) A monopoly won't rise in a free market. Let's take an example: five companies are on the market for resource X, each with 20% market share. Company A wants to have a monopoly, and companies B through E selling for 200M each. A must buy B and then proceed to buy C and so on; if A tries to buy them all at once, everyone's going to find out what's going on and A will be screwed.

A buys B, then goes for C. Well, C's not going to be 200M anymore. Going from 40% to 60% is worth more than going from 20% to 40% - so C is now selling for 300M. A buys C, and goes for D - D's going to be exactly like C, and D sells for 500M. A buys D, and now bids for E. E would jack up their company's price to an incredible fortune, because once E's gone, A has 100% market share and will be able to do anything it wants.

Now given that the last to sell will make a massive amount of money, each company will want to be the last to sell. As a result, none of them will sell because they're going to wait for someone else to sell first.

3) Watchdog companies wouldn't be in demand. If people fear that a company will become an oppressive government, that same company will address concerns - they could, as I suggested, make their monetary transactions transparent. If they took this action (which would be likely), then yes, a watchdog company would not be very strong and would have many free riders. But it wouldn't be a problem, as the concern would already be addressed.

2>>>
I stand by my R1; a vigilante justice system is non-unique to anarchy.

A private justice system doesn't need compulsory authority. Though not a perfect example, I thought it would be nice to use something familiar. The following is from an article by Stefan Molyneux: (http://www.lewrockwell.com...)

"Currently, over 300,000 people rely on it for a significant portion of their income. Most of what they sell is so inexpensive that lawsuits aren't cost-effective - in other words, they operate in a stateless society. So how does eBay resolve disputes? Simply through dialogue and the dissemination of information (see http://pages.ebay.com...). If I don't pay for something I receive, I get a strike against me. If I don't ship something that I was paid for, I get a strike. Everyone I deal with can also rate my products, service and support. If I get rated poorly, I have to sell my goods for less, since, everything else being equal, people prefer dealing with a better-rated vendor (or buyer). If enough people rate me poorly, I will be out of business, because the risk of doing business with me becomes too great. There are no police or courts involved here - thefts are simply dealt with through communication and information sharing."

Non-compulsory authority.

I'm still not sure where corruption comes in. Companies will do all in they can to please their consumers, and if their consumers are worried about corruption, then they will fight it. And anyways, if corruption happens in a company you subscribe to, all you have to do is cancel that subscription and they'll fall. Only desirable things last in a free market, and since corruption is not one of them, it won't happen for long.

If corruption happens in the GOVERNMENT, it's a long process to get rid of the person in question, and even then they'll still have their pension and lofty lifestyle. If accountability is a problem, a state has it worse.

3>>>
1) A company has three types of relationships: With its customers, its employees, and with other companies. It is in the third relationship that the free rider problem is solved.

In absence of a government which holds people to their contracts, the free market provides a solution, which Molyneux has termed "Dispute Resolution Organizations" . To prove their trustworthiness, companies and individuals would to sign contracts with these DRO's, agreeing that this third-party entity will solve disputes. It would be in every person's interest to sign up for this DRO system.

DROs, like private security companies, would be the first to disappear if the anarchy was invaded and taken over. Ergo, there wouldn't be a single successful DRO that wouldn't also have in their contracts a specified payment to national defense. The private security companies would not enter into association or partnerships with them otherwise; any DRO that didn't support private security companies would quickly die off.

2) The source is irrelevant, if they all use the same method. Think about it this way: you get sick and you have the flu, and you take pill X to get better. Would it be different if your doctor put it in your mouth? In both cases, pill X was used. The "pill X" from my example in R1 is "arming the populace".

If invasion was at an anarchy's doorstep, private security companies WOULD arm the people, as it is cheap and it makes invading a near-impossible task. Invading a country is like breaking into an egg - you poof the army, you get into the capital, and you're set. Invading an anarchy is like breaking into a rock - you get past the first row of houses, you'll have to take down the next one. It never ends. There is no central structure to take. And this is all assuming that an anarchy would not take preventive measures in the first place, like buying a couple of nukes.

CFM

1>>>
I have shown that no such weaknesses exist.

2>>>
Also addressed.

3>>>
IF COERCION IS A PROBLEM, USING COERCION IS NOT A SOLUTION!

It does not take much brainpower to figure this out. A kid will quickly realize that if putting his hand on a hot stove will cause pain, then the solution is to NOT put his hand on the stove! The voter must realize that this thought process is the exact same one the word "addiction" refers to. Thinking that the solution to a problem is to create the problem - it is madness.

Slavery will not occur, as it is not profitable. Slavery only existed in America for so long because the government caught the escaping slaves. Brazil did not need a civil war to end slavery - the government stopped catching slaves, and slavery ended soon after.

>>>>>>

Anarchy is not coercion. You can choose to submit yourself or to not submit yourself to a DRO system. If you do, great! Problems are solved peacefully. If you don't, well that's fine too, you just won't be as well off as those who do agree to show that they're trustworthy. In both DRO and statist systems, not submitting oneself to "the law" has consequences - but only in a statist system would one be in constant fear of a law enforcer using violence to drag them back in.

A DRO system is collectively controlled. If you have a concern, then the DRO will address it. Don't like your contract? You can sign up for a different one, or you can go and choose a different DRO! The system is responsive - exponentially more responsive than any government. It is natural law that people respond to incentives. You would be the DRO's incentive: you have the money, you get to have a say! Politicians don't always respond to you (but respond to lobbyists) for this very reason - they will get your money regardless, so they don't need to care about you.

Finally, the Jefferson quote - This is EXACTLY what DRO's and private security companies are. If no agreement can be met, you can choose to not subject yourself to them. Government (as defined) is completely different: they will do what they like to you, whether you consent to it or not. If we are going to agree with Jefferson, then an anarchy is what we want. A "collective compulsory authority" does NOT necessarily get consent from the governed. An anarchy MUST.

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. An analysis of his belief in a DRO system makes me believe that he is a panarchist.
I enjoyed this debate because it allowed me to more understand the anarchist view.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1. Domestic Establishment of tyranny.
My opponent's case against the likely private monopoly of watchdog companies has several flaws. First, it assumes that multiple protection companies already exist (and they wouldn't, because of economy of scale [conceded by my opponent]). Second, it ignores the merging of corporations, which is mutually beneficial to both parties, and was the original market cause of monopolies. Technical monopoly of a watchdog company in addition to the free rider problem which my opponent has not truly addressed make watchdog replacements of government unworking.

In no anarchy has a successful watchdog company ever been made. This is because such companies are unprofitable due the free rider problem. Again, the result of the economics of scale would be either a monopoly or simply no such company at all.

The final result would be no defense against the potential establishment of tyranny by crime organizations such as the mafia or, perhaps more likely, a foreign government.

2. Private Justice and Vigilantism
While vigilante justice exists under other systems, it would certainly be more prevailant under anarchy for reasons aforementioned.

My opponent's eBay example has several flaws. The largest is that it does not apply to coercive, non-monetary crimes against liberty, such as theft. If theft occurs, then that individual was relinquished of his property involuntarily. This isn't like eBay where he willingly bought something from a shady seller.

My opponent has not defended the establishment of a private court system, and therefore concedes it. Private court systems have tendencies towards local monopoly due to economy of scale (conceded by CON) and therefore one cannot simply unsubscribe from the only force that protects them.

"If corruption happens in the GOVERNMENT, it's a long process to get rid of the person in question, and even then they'll still have their pension and lofty lifestyle."
That occurs in the current system, which I am against.

Because the nature of a justice system that protects people from coercion requires coercion itself, and this coercive entity also tends towards monopoly due to the economics of scale, it is best owned and managed by the people.

3. Conquest
My opponent's argument does not address the Free Rider Problem. Customers will not buy defensive services voluntarily because the company will end up protecting them whether they buy them or not. This is why there exists no for-profit private militia, even under previous anarchist systems.

My opponent proposes a DRO; however, such a DRO system fits the definition of government, though it is panarchist. It is a system collectively owned that funds the military. It resolves disputes and protects rights just as a government would with compulsory authority, though this authority is entered into voluntarily. For more information about panarchism: http://en.wikipedia.org...
So, my opponent has argued for a panarchist system of government, and has therefore essentially conceded the debate.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1. National Defense
My opponent has argued that national defense could be funded by a panarchist government. He has therefore effectively conceded this contention, that because of the free rider problem, national defense can not be effective without government.

2. Justice System
As aforementioned, the coercive power of the justice system should not be owned by a private monopoly.

3. Coercion
First, I would like to address slavery. My opponent has argued that it is no longer profitable because of escapes; however, new technology such as surveillance would make escape necessarily impossible. Further, the slave owners would likely employ the private police force to hunt down the escaped slaves, so slavery would begin again under anarchy.
As said earlier, coercion restricted to ending coercion is a lesser evil than allowing free coercion. Both evils cause the infringement of freedom; however, one can easily find that the former is preferable to the latter.
Again, my opponent's DRO system is merely a panarchist system of government.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Conclusion:
An entirely anarchist system of government is unsustainable because private military and defense are undermined by the free rider problem. Because the nature of a justice system that protects people from coercion requires coercion itself, and this coercive entity also tends towards monopoly due to the economics of scale, it is best owned and managed by the people it protects. Therefore, in order to protect the freedoms of human individuals, a small and limited government of some sort must be established. The resolution is affirmed. VOTE PRO.

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. It has given me an introduction into the Anarchist perspective that I desired. It was a good debate, Rezzealaux.

If there is one thing PRO doesn't respond to, it is that corporations rely on voluntary contracts. Consumers are free to sign up, switch contracts, or leave, all without the threat or use of violence against them. This is individual liberty. PRO suggests that DROs are panarchy, and that panarchy is government. This is not true. I showed in R1 that taxation is a necessary corollary of the definition of government, and as DROs do not collect money by force, they cannot be governments. Sure, they might fit the "authority" part, but they are not "compulsory".

Nor do they have court systems, which is also part of the definition of government! PRO is right that I don't defend private courts, I defend private alternatives to courts - mediation, negotiation, and information distribution. Justice is not synonymous to courts. eBay's information system making frauds into failures is certainly justice. eBay is certainly a good example of a DRO today, but it's odd for PRO to say that since eBay can't solve theft, therefore DROs won't work - eBay isn't TRYING to solve theft, it's trying to solve fraud! If there was a perfect real world example of the DRO system I was talking about, I would surely use it, just as I would use empirics on an anarchy defending itself from an invasion. But there isn't, so asking for it is patently ridiculous.

As for domestic tyranny, you must remember that watchdog companies would not be necessary. The DROs themselves would be transparent, so the tyranny problem would already be solved. If DROs let their customers watch them directly for free, of course watchdogs would have free riders - but it's IRRELEVANT. If the police watch your neighborhood and one of your neighbors also does a neighborhood watch, will everyone give him gifts? No, but it doesn't matter.

"The final result would be no defense against the potential establishment of tyranny by crime organizations such as the mafia or, perhaps more likely, a foreign government."

The mafia would not work, as shown by my refutation to CAA1 in R1. They'd have to set up a company to get money, and to be successful they'd have to be trustworthy - which would mean transparency of transactions. If they took to arms, the DRO system would alert everyone to stop interacting with the Mafioso, and they'd be screwed. Remember, everything is owned: they have nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. Nobody will help them, because then THEY'd be screwed. And remember, this is all voluntary. DROs are not pointing guns at their customers, they are simply saying "if you help the mafia, you will be penalized". Individual liberty is preserved by the anarchy's DRO system, all while deterring others from infringing on individual liberty.

As for governments, PRO has conceded that DROs would be able to successfully defend the anarchy.

On the topic of national defense, PRO said anarchies will either 1) have the free rider problem or 2) have a DRO system, which is a panarchy and involves governments. As I chose the second path and have shown repeatedly how a DRO is not a government, I win this point as well.

It is of no consequence that Wiki's article on panarchy mentions "regularly competing governments", as Wiki's definition of government is not the same as the one in this debate.

Concerning monopolies...

When PRO quoted Friedman in R2, I wasn't sure what "economics of scale" meant. So I gave an example, hoping that PRO would explain what this idea from Friedman would show how I was wrong. However my argument still stands true, as he did not show how Friedman is provenby that example. If the theory is true, then the instances MUST show that the theory is true. I did not drop Friedman, I refuted him with an example. As for merging being beneficial to both parties, it would only happen if the customers desired it. Remember, PRO never refutes the fact that all companies in an anarchy rely on subscriptions/payments from their customers. If the customers do not want a merge, then they can send a letter to the corporation, negotiate, or leave if they'd like. They can even start up their own company! But if the company does merge and customers do stay with it, then clearly they consent to what is going on. Nobody is keeping them bound to that company - they are free to leave at any time. There is no threat or use of violence.

>>>

National Defense:
If you are worried about the free rider problem, please refer to CAA3 part 1 from my R2 for the solution that PRO conceded. As for whether or not an anarchy's defense would be effective, please see CAA3 from my R1, which has also since been conceded.

Justice system:
Straw man, as I have been advocating a justice system (not court system) that fully respects individual liberties.

Coercion:
It is true that it would be impossible for a slave to escape due to new technology, and if there's slavery in an anarchy then there'd definitely be slave catching companies. So let's say there's Bob and his slave Stan, whom he somehow acquired. What does everyone else do? Well, slavery reduces customers for DROs, so as a whole so they wouldn't contract with slave owners. The system would then be against slave owners, and slave owners would be screwed like the Mafia trying to take over. Sure, there could be slavery - but nobody would want to do it, for economic reasons. I mean they could, if they want. But those who would do such a thing wouldn't be stopped by a state system anyways, so it's nonunique. Crimes of passion are a problem to both systems, but for crimes of motive, an anarchist solution does the job without infringing on individual liberties.

>>>

Conclusion:
I have shown that an anarchist DRO system is not hindered by the free rider problem, and that it does not use a coercive justice system. Such a system would be collectively owned by the people, as PRO pointed out, and it would be entirely voluntary. Though a government is also a collectively owned system, the state constantly violates individual liberty through forced collection of fees (taxation). The point of this debate was to show which was the lesser evil - an anarchy, or a minarchy - this is shown clearly by the wording of the resolution. Through 12 arguments (6 presented in R1, 6 in R2), PRO attempted to show areas in which an anarchy would result in more infringement upon liberties than an anarchy. However, as I have shown how an anarchy would be successful in every one of those points, there is no offense left against an anarchy.

However, PRO never refuted that part of a definition of a government is taxation - and taxation is violence. This is an obvious violation of individual liberties that is unique to governments. Remember, in an anarchy, corporations are funded through voluntary contracts: no violence is involved, people are free to come and go as they please.

No government can ever achieve individual liberty, as it is based on attacking individual liberty.
The anarchy I propose is not based on attacking individual liberty, but respecting it.

I have sufficiently addressed each of PRO's concerns, and shown in each of those concerns, an anarchy's answer is either equivalent or superior to statist solutions. Add that to the definitive difference between an anarchy and a state, which is the government's constant infringement of individual liberties through taxation, and you get:

1) Government is evil, but it's definitely not necessary.
2) Anarchy infringes less on individual liberties - it doesn't at all, in fact!

I negate, "Government is not a necessary evil to protect the freedoms of human individuals".

Vote CON.

>>>>>>>>>

This was my first time defending anarchism in a formal debate, but the workout was great. There are some arguments I would've loved to deliver, but the length restriction prevents me from using what I believe are the strongest ones - though I'm sure it's the same for you!

The state actually threatens defense by spreading imperialism and nation building around the world it is making the outside world hate us more. Also there is no reason why private institutions could not protect are rights, they wouldn't need to have wars like states do because war is unprofitable.

You guys...I liked the debate overall, but you both picked values and criterions for which proving the link between them was your resolutional burden. That's not how V+C's work--it's supposed to be more of a Toulmin method kind of thing. Your criterion is the warrant for the claim "Affirming/negating achieves X", where X is your value.

This'll be my second year doing LD, and I've seen much worse representations of those components, but I was rather nonplussed with both of you.

It's completely irrelevant if states "should" or "shouldn't" do more than "provide the basics", it is an inevitable fact that state power grows. As for rights, we use the term "rights" to refer to certain priveleges that the government grants the population. Personally I don't believe in rights and most anarchists I know don't either, so I'm not sure who or what you're arguing against, but you're absolutely right. Rights don't exist. As for State of Nature, I am obviously not arguing for such a thing.

Rights don't exist if they can be taken away, read Nozick. Governments aren't necessary evils, there States that are in place to provide the basics and they should do NOTHING more. Define freedom, you're more free in the state of nature, but not necessarily better off.

Government can protect your rights or take them away. The Bush Administration took away more rights than any previous president, and the Obama Administration is going to take away more. Starting with removing your right to pick your own health care.